𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞, 𝐮𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐬 = 𝐄𝐔 𝐟𝐢𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬? 𝐄𝐔 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬, 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞? 🤔 Time for a niche — but interesting — legal question on the interplay of MiCA & PSD2 for stablecoins / e-money tokens (EMTs) in the EU. The EMT definition under MiCA is intentionally far broader than the e-money definition in the E-Money Directive (EMD), which only covered e-money issued by EU-licensed financial institutions. Under MiCA, a crypto-asset can be an EMT even with no EU-related issuance or public offer. Now, following MiCA and the recent EBA guidance on the MiCA–PSD2 interplay for EMTs, any EMT is “deemed” to be electronic money — and PSD2 says electronic money = “funds.” Following this logic, all EMTs — including those not issued or offered in the EU — are treated as fiat funds in the EU. Example: even an AUD stablecoin issued in Australia by a non-EU firm, never offered here, could legally be deemed “funds” in the EU the moment it meets MiCA’s EMT definition. What's your take here? Traditionally, “funds” status was reserved for bank money and EU-issued e-money. Extending it to unregulated, offshore stablecoins raises some interesting questions around their usage in capital markets, financial transactions etc. where the term "funds" has legal weight. What are major implications of this? Curious to hear from EU legal minds on this!(Patrick Hansen)